Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and
> > > a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them)
> > > profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in
> > > having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to
> > > change them
> > Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST
> > in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild
> > everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of
> > that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll
> > have time.
> >
> > The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf
> > for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just
> > breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of
> > finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not
> > sure if I want to break everything ;)
>
> CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile.  In fact, I can
> think of a lot of cases where it does not.  While I agree that it
> shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a
> requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember.

The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set
CHOST in make.conf if you want to.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.